Dear U.S. Bank,
You’re breaking my heart. You use my money to support the dirty energy companies that threaten our water, climate, indigenous rights and the health of our communities. You are jeopardizing our children’s future.
U.S. Bank, I need a relationship based on trust. You claim you care about climate change, but I found out you got together with Wells Fargo, and provided $22 billion dollars in financing to the oil and gas industry over the last 3 years.
U.S. Bank, I've had enough, it's over between us! I am moving on to a bank that has begun divesting from fossil fuels.
Sincerely,
(Your Name)
Sign and share to pledge to attend a Move Your Money action at a U.S. Bank near you!
For more information about which banks have begun to divest from fossil fuels, see "The End of Coal" report at http://bit.ly/1OBvhPt
To find a community bank or credit union near you, visit http://www.icba.org/ or http://www.asmarterchoice.org/

As known, in the European Union (EU), Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 announced that all 28 member states are required to have a strategic petroleum reserve within the territory of the E.U. equal to at least 90 days of average domestic consumption.
Similarly, the International Energy Agency (IEA), announced in the March 2001 agreement, that all 28 IEA members must have a strategic petroleum reserve equal to 90 days of the previous year's net oil imports for their respective countries.
Both the EU and the IEA aim for their member states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least the emission goals pledged by countries under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) -see http://www.iea.org/topics/climatechange/ - or
even exceed those goals ( http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030/index_en.htm ,
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050/index_en.htm ).
Given the fact that such huge reductions -ie 80% emissions reduction below 1990 levels- can not be attained without also having completely discarded the fossil fuel industry, it is hence in the intrest of the EU and the IEA, to start phasing out the use of fossil fuels, wherever possible (which in practice relates to any activities in public/government control).
The strategic petroleum reserves (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_strategic_petroleum_reserves ) are one such activity, controlled by the government, which can thus be transformed.
By biofuels, we mean fuels such as:
* straight vegetable oil (corn, olive, peanut, camelina, avocado, sesame, oil palm, soy, safflower, coconut): which can be used to run 2-stroke Diesel engines, and converted 4-stroke Diesel engines
* biodiesel: can be used to run 4-stroke Diesel engines, without modification
* ethanol: can be used to run gasoline engines (with minor modification)
* biobutanol: can be used to run gasoline engines (without modification)
One possible dowside is the price of the biofuels, which are currently still higher than the price of fossil fuels. Only in the case of straight vegetable oil it is cheaper (when compared with fossil diesel fuel).
Some prices:
* Fuel oil: 0,55 euro/l
* Cheapest SVO (supermarket price, salad oil, in containers, not bulk): 0,53 euro/l
It should be noted however that on the long term, switching to biofuels instead of fossil fuels will actually be cheaper, as:
* it helps to kickstart the green economy/green fuels industry as it will help convince farmers of starting to grow biofuel crops, ...
* it helps countries to avoid some costs caused due natural disasters in turn caused by climate change (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
)
* ...

Achieving a climate treaty this December depends on whether enough assistance will be offered to the countries that will suffer most from the consequences of climate change. Developed countries pledged in 2009 to arrange financing of $100bn per year by 2020, but according to an analysis by the World Resources Institute published in October, 2015, $14 billion per year is now lacking. A recent study shows that 90 companies caused 63% of total industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions since 1854 (half of which dates to 1986), and traces 18.7% of total emissions to seven companies including ExxonMobil (Climatic Change, January, 2014). Among these seven, ExxonMobil stands out because of its climate-change misinformation campaign and other efforts to impede establishment of emissions-reducing laws and policies. Former Exxon CEO Lee R. Raymond said in 1997 that "the most pressing environmental problems of the developing nations are related to poverty, not global climate change." The two problems are now closely related. As Oxfam states on its website, climate change hits poor communities hardest, despite the fact that "the carbon footprint of the world’s one billion poorest people represents just 3 percent of the global total." If current CEO Rex Tillerson agrees with Raymond about poverty or agrees with Ken Cohen, his company's spokesperson (who has more than once written on the company's website that "the risks of climate change are real and the risks warrant action"), then he should quickly do everything he can to ensure achievement of a climate treaty.

While we must focus on the here and now in our work to mitigate and solve the climate catastrophe, those responsible for creating and exacerbating the most dangerous circumstances ever faced by mankind, must be made to answer for any criminal actions that have taken place, and have a hand in bearing the financial burden of paying for the solutions to the crisis.
Exxon had reports from their own internal scientists, in the late 1970's, that clearly showed the dangers that their product and activities were having on the planet. With this information in hand, the decision was made to bury the data and instead, for decades, fund purposefully erroneous reports to confuse the American public, and to form and finance propaganda organizations in order to give the appearance of a debate over the effects of their activities and the role carbon was playing in the climate change phenomenon.

Since its formation in 1988, South Yorkshire Pensions Authority has worked hard on behalf of its nearly 140,000 members to provide them with a safe and secure future in retirement. Yet while ever it invests in unethical companies or industries, including fossil fuels and tobacco, the Authority is putting these achievements at great risk, by undermining long-term commitments to maximise pension fund investments and to provide good service to fund members. (The over 300 employers contributing to the Authority's schemes are also at risk, as it is they who will ultimately meet any shortfall in the cost of providing scheme benefits to retired members.)
The South Yorkshire Pensions Authority (SYPA) which manages the Local Government Pension Scheme has £259m invested in companies with fossil fuel and fracking connections such as Shell, BP and Glencore, 4.25% of its £6.1bn holdings (as at Mar 2016). It also holds investments in companies which fail to balance their focus on profit with the social and environmental responsibilities expected in the modern day.
We believe it is morally indefensible to invest in companies that destroy our climate and so leave to our children a world where life as we know it is unsustainable. And that it is financially irresponsible to invest in such a high risk sector where the experts agree that the assets are currently wildly overstated and where share prices are certain to plummet.

Pipeline ruptures, the likes of which occurred in Mayflower, Arkansas and the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, demonstrate the devastating effects a spill would have on our rivers and creeks, on our health and our local economies. Our Natural Gas supply, delivery and cost will also be negatively affected.
This pipeline proposal is not compatible with a safe climate. Canada cannot meet any meaningful climate target if this project is approved. Ontario has made progress in reducing its emissions by shutting coal plants, but rising tar sands production risks wiping out those gains.
Energy East carries many risks for Renfrew County, but few benefits.

The Teachers Retirement System (TRS) of Georgia has significant investments in fossil fuel corporations, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Peabody Energy, BP, China Coal Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Royal Dutch Shell. We believe that investing in fossil fuel companies hastens climate change by providing those companies incentives to continue extracting and exploring for dirty forms of energy. Divestment would encourage energy companies to shift their resources toward renewable energy sources.
The recent oil spill in Santa Barbara is just one of the many negative consequences of our reliance on fossil fuels. Besides rising carbon dioxide levels, other problems associated with our dependence on fossil fuels include the numerous wars fought for access to oil, the damage to the environment from fracking, tanker and pipeline spills, and air and water pollution.

Last week, as the European Games begin in Baku, I was detained in Azerbaijan for speaking out against the fossil fuel funded Azeri regime. I was lucky, I was released. There are over 100 people facing years in Azeri jails - activists, journalists, filmmakers, academics and lawyers - anyone who criticises the regime.
People like Rasul Jafarov. Rasul is a young, charismatic activist who founded the Sport for Rights campaign. He planned highlight the number of political prisoners in Azerbaijan during the Games, however a few weeks after starting the campaign Rasul himself became a political prisoner.
The Euro-Caspian Mega Pipeline will keep the repressive Aliyev regime in power by ensuring that fossil fuel revenues keep flowing to the country's ruling elite. The EBRD's loan to Lukoil will further entrench the Aliyev regime, buying them influence and money and making it making it even harder for those organising for democracy in Azerbaijan.
The Euro-Caspian Mega Pipeline is also a disaster for the climate. It will lock Europe into fossil fuels for the next fifty years and pump over 2 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. If Europe is to avert the worst impacts of climate change, both at home and elsewhere, we must stop this pipeline.
On 22 July the EBRD needs to say no to funding the Euro-Caspian Mega Pipeline and send a signal to the growing resistance along the route of the pipeline that the era of fossil fuels is coming to an end.

We need to stand up and demand that governments and energy producers respect the fundamental right to breathe clean air and not see it as a threat to their profits.
Coal-fired power plants speed up global warming by filling the atmosphere with vast amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal burning leads to acid rain and smog, and emits more than 60 different hazardous air pollutants such as a variety of toxic metals, organic compounds, acid gases, sulfur, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and particulate matter.
Coal is an obsolete energy source that is already being phased out by renewable energy technologies.

Without such a mechanism there will be no way to ensure countries do not go ahead with fossil fuel exploration and exploitation in conservation priority areas, specially if the reserves are low development cost.
This effect will be even stronger in a world of restricted fossil fuel extraction due to unburnable fuel policies and will put even more pressure on low to average cost reserves, including those under World Heritage Sites, protected areas or otherwise known to be of priority for conservation, and on which many local and indigenous people depend for their livelihood.
Without this fund, it is not realistic to assume that poor and developing countries, affected by scarce resources, acute poverty and social development problems, may accept leaving fossil fuel reserves unexploited and forego the income they can thus obtain to help solve these problems.

Ozamiznons are up against a big fight. And this time it is about their survival. It is about the future of their generation. It is about surviving amidst the daily challenges they are facing.
Sometime last year, 2014, concerned Ozamiznons were dipped into troubling hot waters. Concerned citizens and environmentalist who were familiar with the impacts and deleterious effect of coal fired power plants were anxious because of the Ozamiz City Government’s green light on the project. Ozamiz City is a component city of Misamis Occidental and is located right in the mouth of the rich Panguil Bay. It has a population of 133,105 last 2013 census and 123,137 households. Majority of the population still relies on forestry, agriculture and marine resources for livelihood and survival.
A stakeholders’ dialogue happened last April 22, 2013. However not much of the information were revealed aside from assurances that there was no agreement yet entered into by City Government. But right now concerned citizens complained about too much secrecy surrounding the proposed project. Even members of city council were not apprised. Worst, the provincial government of Misamis Occidental was not even consulted.
The negative impacts of coal fired power plant have been well document. A study commissioned by Greenpeace “Burning Our Future”, detailed about presence of mercury, a deadly neurotoxin in the fly ash samples taken from the 600-MW coal-fired power plant of Calaca, Batangas. Greenpeace challenged the Philippine government to conduct its own testing. What happened was earth shattering. Mercury was detected and even far worse than Greenpeace tests. The Calaca plant was described by Philippine Senator Sergio Osmeña III as “an environmental disaster I wouldn’t wish on anyone.” quote the Greenpeace Report.
But the most fatal of the impacts of coal ash is the 35 kilometer radius death zone from power plant. The May 2005 study made by W.F.Donahue, et al, of the Department of Biological Research of the University of Alberta, proves metallic concentrations of mercury, copper, lead, arsenic and selenium have increased 1.2 to 4 fold in areas located within the 35 km radius. Ozamiz City is a small city and all its barangays is within the 35 km radius death zone from host Barangay Pulot.
This Earth Day, let us remember the Ozamiznons assertion of the right to health and secured future. Let us all unite with all affected people to tell the City Government of Ozamiz to reject the coal fired power plant. Let us support the call of the Ozamiznons “ DON’T ROB US AND OUR CHILDREN’S CHILDREN OUR FUTURE”. Let us hear their cry or else it will be too late.

The truth is that PennEast is a private business that will force people off their land, will create only short term jobs, and would only be a way for a private company to transport their gas from Pennsylvania through our backyard to somewhere else. They will likely export much of what they produce, as their gas could fetch as much as four times the price it could here overseas.
Crossing 88 waterways, 44 wetlands, and 30 parks, this pipeline also risks the area's natural beauty and the habitats of endangered species including the Bald Eagle, Ospreys and wood turtles among others.
I implore the people and government agencies involved with the PennEast Pipeline to rethink this move and at least, postpone the pipeline until further public discussion can be had.